Sunday, November 30, 2008

Food miles? Organic? Roo?

This month Choice magazine (Journal of the Australian Consumers Association) has a spiel about food miles. I'm sure I didn't see anything about production methods and 'environmental' costs of production offsetting/weighing down the food miles. I thought it was a bit one-sided, and you know which side that is! Can't reproduce it, sorry.

However, today Tim Blair has linked to an interesting article on food miles, organic growing and sustainability. Well worth a read. Clueless people swallow this crap, I can't believe it!

For example, it's recommended, since Garnaut's mention of Roo meat in his report, that we focus on roo as our source of meat. Great. What's wrong with that? Here's a few things:
  • roo meat cuts are only about 1.5kg per animal, the rest is only fit for processed meat which the World Cancer Research Foundation is advising people to totally avoid because it is an even more potent source of bowel cancer than ordinary meat
  • we rarely meet the quota for roo killing (3M/annum) - it's not a cool job, and it's expensive to shoot roos - petrol and 4WDs.
It's very interesting, please read it. (Note: it's by an animal liberationist.)

Pointed out in comments, there's much more roo meat than the 1.5kg quoted by the animal liberationist in the article. Wonder how an animal-liberationist mathematician got it wrong?


MarkL said...

Yeah, but it's bollocks, Kae. last winter I was out pig hunting with a group out in NSW. One of the blokes shot 2 Eastern Greys (big ones) on ticket and we dressed them. Just the tails yielded 4kg or so each (bone in) and the total yield was roughly half the gross mass (bone in) of the animals.

So this SA mathematician cannot count...

Had a beer with Habib yesterday at Brisbane airport on the way back from O/S. He's in fine form!


Minicapt said...

"... even more potent source of bowel cancer than ordinary meat ..." can also be added to the "I really don't think so" list.


kae said...

Mini et al, the anti meat eating mob reckon meat gives you cancer. It's because they reckon it rots in the bowel because humans aren't meant to eat meat, our digestive tract is all wrong for it.

Funny about that. Was a time most of what we would be able to eat would have been meat, cos we certainly didn't farm vegies etc.

Minicapt said...

Someone did a comparison between Human, Coyote, and Sheep digestive systems. The human and the coyote (Meat-eater) systems were not similar to the sheep's (vegan) to a noticeably significant extent. There's a reason for the four stomaches, after-all.